Could it have been worse than Sotomayor?
posted at 1:34 pm on June 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Byron York says yes — and it could still get that way. Barack Obama has nominated Judge Andre Davis to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which York finds ironic, since they have spent a considerable amount of time reversing Davis’ rulings from his Maryland District Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved Davis 16-3 and the Senate will likely confirm him, but York says they should take a second look.
York mainly focuses on a case in 2005 in which Davis got overturned unanimously by the same panel he will shortly join. Police arrested a suspect in his mother’s house after she gave her consent to a search. While in the process of reading the suspect his rights, his mother — extremely angry at the son — peppered him with questions, and the son admitted that he had an illegal weapon hidden in the room as well as drugs. Davis ruled that his admission could not be used in court, as the mother acted as an agent of the police in interrogating the son before he was properly Mirandized. The 4th Circuit scoffed at that notion, rejecting the argument out of hand.
That is one of 13 reversals on criminal matters:
Davis has made other, equally striking mistakes. There was the 2004 case in which a drug dealer used a Mail Boxes Etc. branch to pick up packages of cocaine. Police confiscated one package and discovered that the man had keys to several other boxes which investigators knew had been used to receive drugs. The cops also had eyewitness testimony linking the man to the boxes. Yet Davis ruled police did not have probable cause to arrest and search the man. The judge’s decision was unanimously overturned by the Fourth Circuit.
Then there was the 2006 case in which Davis virtually begged three violent drug offenders to plead guilty so they could get lighter sentences. It was a near-total abdication of a judge’s role as neutral arbiter, which the Fourth Circuit, in unanimously overturning Davis, said “affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
In all, Davis’ decisions on criminal matters have been overturned 13 times, more often than not because Davis erred by siding with accused criminals.
York mainly concerns himself with the damage Davis can do on the 4th Circuit, which could be considerable, but that’s not the biggest problem with Davis’ appointment. The 4th Circuit handles cases in the mid-Atlantic region, giving it a high profile — and making it a tempting place to find future Supreme Court nominees. That was the reason Democrats fought so hard against conservative jurist Janice Rogers Brown on the DC Circuit, and for much less reason than the Republicans have with Davis.
A nomination of Andre Davis to the Supreme Court would make Sonia Sotomayor look like Anthony Kennedy. Republicans will not be able to stop the Davis appointment at this late date, but they do need to get these cases and their concerns on the record now, to prevent the “Republicans didn’t object before” defense the White House trotted out with Sotomayor.
Update: Commenters correctly point out that I had confused the DC Circuit with the 4th Circuit, which covers the mid-Atlantic region and still has a high profile in DC. Thank you for the correction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I don’t mind Sotomayor. Confirm her. There’s a chance she’s pro-life, and she has to be better than Souter.
Just get it OVAHwith
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM
What a f**king moron.
So the mom has been de facto deputized by the police when she shames her own son into being a man?
I wan a badge now, dammit.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:38 PM
While I don’t think there’s a chance she’s actually pro-life… I agree.
She’s maybe the best we’ll get, so just give her an up or down vote.
Abby Adams on June 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
There is no chance that Sotomayor is pro-life, she knows damn well what side her bread is buttered on. Obama, who is the most extreme pro-abortion politician in history, would NEVER nominate a pro-life justice.
echosyst on June 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I agree.
This is the Chicago way.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:41 PM
This is why the GOP needs to knock off the silly talk about her.
There are some bad, bad choices coming down the pipeline that will really hinder the country.
This guy is one of them.
AnninCA on June 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM
So mistakes are okay, but hold the line at big mistakes.
Got it.
lorien1973 on June 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I agree. The woman will never be taken seriously on the Court. She will always be thought of as some hypersensitive Latina. Its really the best we can hope for. We don’t want some distinguished liberal on the Court adding prestige to their cause.
Speedwagon82 on June 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Sotomayor is likely a Deathbot but you never know. It is risible however that she claims never to have thought about the rights of an unborn child. Living under a rock?
Mason on June 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Don’t think so. She just recently said that she had never given any thought to the notion of rights for a fetus. That’s right, someone of her experience, intellect, and empathy has never even thought about the potential rights of a fetus. She’s stooopid.
JiangxiDad on June 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
This is why the GOP needs to constantly be on the offensive. Making a concession w/ Sotomayor is an act of suicide.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Interesting article. But, the 4th Circuit doesn’t include DC. And, Janice Rogers Brown is on the D.C. Circuit, where most cases involving the federal government originate, not the 4th Circuit. However, it sounds like it’s a bad idea to have this guy on ANY circuit.
wisconsin on June 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Never question a “wise black man” concerning family issues.
All 30% that stay around know what they are doing…
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:46 PM
We shouldn’t mock the SCOTUS w/ her presence.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Eh, over the line. I understand the context but that’s a pretty broad brush
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Calling people racists is much ado over nothing. I agree with Joe S. that makes the GOP irrelevant to many people. Obstructing everything isn’t an attraction.
However, real discussion of real issues….is.
Just my political armchair position, of course.
AnninCA on June 12, 2009 at 1:49 PM
…well…as long as the nation is brought to its knees, making it easy for Obama and the neo-coms to “make it over”, who cares what judges we have, no?
(begins humming the “Internationale”)
Puritan1648 on June 12, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Not really. You’re probably thinking of the D.C. Circuit. Yes, the Fourth Circuit decides cases from Maryland and Virginia, both of which border D.C. But most federal agency decisions actually come from within D.C. itself.
Outlander on June 12, 2009 at 1:49 PM
That’s a bit OT, I think. Davis wasn’t defending the family in any way. Whether he meant to or not, he was throwing the mother under the bus by making her part of the police force.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Considering the 1) ridiculous Sotomayer statement, 2) statistical fact and 3) Davis’ asinine decision was overruled – I stand by my pithy statement.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM
How asinine. You know there’s another option, right? Hold the line on all bad choices, regardless of their supposed magnitude?
Sheesh, it’s like Lindsey Graham got a Hot Air account.
LastRick on June 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Eh, over the line. I understand the context but that’s a pretty broad brush
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
are you saying the 30% figure is inaccurate?
who appointed you HA PC police?
max1 on June 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
What she said was arrogant, ignorant, and smacked of an attitude of anti-white racism.
Whether you like it or not, it’s entirely appropriate to laber her comments as racist, and to label her as unfit to judge wisely partly based on her held racist values.
I agree that we can’t focus soely on that, and that the GOP may lose political traction bby chosing this line of attack.
But if someone were calling you a racist all of the time, don’t you think you’d owe it to yourself to point it out in your accusers when they do it?
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Which is all the more reason to block Sotomayor now. And block any person this thing in the white house puts forth.
SouthernGent on June 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
she’s crypto-pro-life at best, and all that doesn’t matter much since she’s anti-gun, and without the 2nd amendment, none of the rest matters.
kirkill on June 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Whether he meant to or not, he was throwing the mother under the bus by making her part of the police force.
Operative words are “throwing the mother under the bus”, as do 70%…
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Sheesh, calm down. It IS accurate, I’m just saying, I don’t think the ruling was “well because I’m a black man here’s why I know better”. It was a dumb rule, but I don’t think race had anything to do with it!
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Operative words are “throwing the mother under the bus”, as do 70%…
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Shoots and scores !!
max1 on June 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I am sure he is a “Wise Black Man” and much more qualified than any Honky Judge….
SDarchitect on June 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I don’t always (okay I rarely) agree w/ Ann, but I’m glad she’s here. She’s not a troll and I like her honesty when it comes to what she thinks.
That being said…NOT attacking these nominations is a bad idea. Americans everywhere (and not just GOP members) need to seriously scrutinize Obama’s (or anyone’s) picks for SCOTUS. I don’t want radicals on my SCOTUS.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM
That is a broad brush…
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM
We get it. You don’t like black men.
Let it go, broheim.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Riiiight. Rush was putting that out on the radio, to get Libs to have doubts. She won’t buck the party line on abortion. She’s a Democrat. There’s always a chance she could be worse. What’s your hurry? Let’s give the Senate the time to study and interview her.
I don’t care who was on deck. Are they trying to make her seem more mainstream by comparing her to someone more offensive? Judge each person by their own merits, not comparisons with somebody else.
hawksruleva on June 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM
The principle of up or down votes on judges shouldn’t be changed just because we aren’t in the majority anymore. That would just make us as hypocritical as Democrats. SCOTUS has survived embarrassments before (Ruth Bader).
Speedwagon82 on June 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I don’t like cowards who leave mothers empty handed, black leaders playing the race-baiting glass ceiling card and you.
Clear enough?
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I’m wondering if the son had a room, in his mother’s house, that he was staying in? If so, he could’ve had a reasonable expectation of privacy, where the weapon and drugs were “hidden.” Her “consent” to search wouldn’t be applicable to any area where her son had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police would’ve had to get his consent, too.
Just sayin’.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Just don’t be so snarkily racist about it.
your initial hook shot at 30% of black men was as irrelevant as it is dopey.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM
If there’s any chance at all of defeating the Sonia Sotomayor nomination, then it should be done.
1) Her views disqualify her
2) It would be a political blow to Obama
The first would be ample reason, since her beliefs about the nature of judging are un-American, and I don’t use the term lightly.
The second arises because a) she was a political choice, justifying a political response, and b) people are making the argument that the on-deck hitter might be more fearsome.
There is no reason to expect that a politically defeated, humiliated, and exposed Obama would have greater freedom to pick a worse ideologue and have him or her confirmed – in greater proximity to the 2010 Mid-Terms.
CK MacLeod on June 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Dude, calm down. You have to admit the 70/30 thing came out of nowhere in relation to the post. It’d be like a story on the Catholic church that has been ordered to close due to budget cuts in connecticut, and posting “well maybe if they wouldnt mess around with altar boys this wouldnt happen!” that’d be in poor taste as well
battleoflepanto1571 on June 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM
There is no chance that Sotomayor is pro-life, she knows damn well what side her bread is buttered on. Obama, who is the most extreme pro-abortion politician in history, would NEVER nominate a pro-life justice.
echosyst on June 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Given the Dems are pushing her pro-life “creds” I wouldn’t count on it.
Jed_Eckert on June 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Former President George H.W. Bush stood up for his former judicial nominee Sonia Sotomayor Friday, telling CNN Anchor Robin Meade that GOP critics who called President Obama’s Supreme Court pick a racist were off-base, and unfair.
SouthernGal on June 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM
LOL. Is that (”broheim”) the German translation of “broham”?
LastRick on June 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM
So calling people racist is trivial, but calling people sexist, isn’t?
ladyingray on June 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Here you go.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM
And many Conservatives, me included, don’t give a damn about what H.W. Bush says about the matter. The GOP went downhill after Reagan … and starting with H.W. Bush.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
And yes it is…:)
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Bush 41 turned into a useful idiot when he was being interviewed by the MSN to get “perspective” on W.
I don’t care what No New Taxes says.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Wow, these Chicago people really know how to make us an offer we can’t refuse!
redwhiteblue on June 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Why was this not the basis for removing this moron from the bench?
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Well, Sotomayor has a mixed record. I really see her rulings as pretty even-handed. That’s just my perception. The kerfluffle is over some dumb remark she made, not a ruling.
BUT….that aside….touche. LOL*
You made me laugh.
AnninCA on June 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Seemed relevant enough for you to opine. And quite frankly the issue is much more relevant than morons care to pay attention to it. Ask Stanley Crouch, Bill Cosby or the few thousand dead each year due to gang violence.
Interesting you mention that, being I left the Catholic church during the scandal and make every opportunity to mention it when people claim “moral authority” from the Catholic pulpit.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM
With the (R)s that are on the judiciary committee now, I’m not surprised that he sailed through at 16-3….God help us!
cmsinaz on June 12, 2009 at 2:11 PM
God help us.
t.ferg on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
To answer the question “Could it get worse than Sotomayor?”
I am a white male. I will have to defer…
Lemmy on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Nobody wants to have that R card played on them without high profile.
AnninCA on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
But she’s such a devout Catholic. *sigh*
Good Lord, can the dems pick em, or can they pick em? This guy sounds 100 times worse that Sotomayor.
capejasmine on June 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM
If you haven’t noticed, they are always releasing these stories that put into question some issue implying that the person is moderate, but without any real proof.
You’re being played people. Like a cheap fiddle, to boot.
Blake on June 12, 2009 at 2:19 PM
The idea of Sotomayor being a false flag nominee has been floated before. Although the alternative was Michelle O on the forum…that would be scary, too. We’re so over-the-barrel right now it’s hard to pick the right battles.
NTWR on June 12, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Here is an idea. Sotomayor got called up to the majors. Let’s see the U.S. Senate gauge her performance during the confirmation hearings. Projected eligibily of caliber of character does not necessarily mean she has any. Reserve yourselves. I don’t think everything has come out yet. BTW, What is the rush crap of moving up her confirmation hearings anyway. Obama seems to consistently be in a hurry. Stimulus, Health care and now Sotomayor. Why is that?
Americannodash on June 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM
It’s The Cloward-Piven Strategy.
NTWR on June 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Still OT I know: My favorite entry by far at that link was the absurd, yet somehow related, “broheimina”. Seriously? Whoever said that word first — and then enough times to ensure its addition into the Urban Dictionary — should have been laughed at.
LastRick on June 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Dude. Seriously. Get over it.
This post demonstrates that your cred here just hit rock bottom. Don’t keep digging. lol
For what it’s worth, there are indeed a lot of issues that Black America has to deal with. Bitter white(?) people like you taking pot shots at them (again, over something irrelevant) doesn’t help do anything but demonstrate your own jerkishness.
But we get it. Really, we do.
*smooches*
/getablackfriend
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Could it have been worse? with Obama; h*ll yes it could and most likely will be yet.
pgrossjr on June 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The GOP doesn’t have the votes. But what they have to do is clearly define Sotomayor as the farthest left that a nominee can possibly be. They need to outline her as barely acceptable so that Obama’s later nominees, if worse, get worked over.
BuckeyeSam on June 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Or how about “brosephine” lol?
I have a friend that teaches English at a Big 10 university who lamented once about how she used “actually used ‘bromance’ in a lecture” on accident.
God, I love portmanteaus of the frat variety :)
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
It’s The Cloward-Piven Strategy.
NTWR on June 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM
.
.
Yes, well done.
Americannodash on June 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM
No, it couldn’t be worse than Sotomayor. This is the argument they always try to palm off on you when they roll over like they have a 100 times before because they are pu$$ies.
Blake on June 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
As if these rationalizations negate her vote as a Justice on matters that will dissolve our Constitutional Government.
I recall the Democrats refusing to support an entire LIST of names, blocking many votes from occurring.
Whether Sotomayor is less horrible than the next judge, there’s no reason to let her off her own crooked hooks. Make her squirm over Constitutional matters.
maverick muse on June 12, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Spoken like a true idiot. I love the pandering, mixed with “opinion” and attempt to influence my 37 years of life experience.
“Cred” is a nice touch. Kudos.
PS – my fiend, who happens to be black enjoyed your comments. We are heading to the beach in a bit for drinks – but will consider your in-depth “race relations” for the future.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I agree that we’ve heard this refrain TOO MANY TIMES already. We heard the propaganda, “it took a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan” to excuse voting for Obama; and “we have to be more Leftist in order to include the Left in our party” that proved another ploy to enable further Marxist aggression in our nation’s political power structure.
Legitimate Litmus test of every government employee: will you uphold the Constitution of the United States in your conduct, influence and decisions?
maverick muse on June 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Liberal.
2Brave2Bscared on June 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Even if it miraculously happened, I don’t think it would be that big a blow. Dems would still control the Senate and lefties would be overjoyed that he picks a known pro-choicer which Sotomayor isn’t. Getting rid of Miers was ultimately a good thing for conservatives.
Speedwagon82 on June 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I don’t see the rationale behind endorsing a Trojan Horse, knowing that it is filled with viruses and lethal combatants enabling the dissolution of the Constitution, with a wimpy warning accompanying the permission slip AS IF for this time only.
If you don’t have the balls to work over every nominee, you don’t have the balls to work over any nominee.
maverick muse on June 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM
The sorry state of the black American family is a huge issue and it concerns all of us here in America. Neither Odie or any other white person (such as myself) should be made to feel guilty about speaking out against it, or bringing it up. The fact that you have thrown a cow over such a small a thing as accurately stated statistics that shed light on an unflattering reality within a PC-protected community shows just what a PC-conscious liberal you really are.
And guess what… I don’t have any black friends! And even if I did I certainly wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of mentioning them in an effort to prove how non-racist I am. That’s where I think Odie made a mistake.
2Brave2Bscared on June 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Speedwagon82 on June 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM
As if size is the only thing that matters.
Wearing integrity when it is convenient and popular is hypocrisy.
maverick muse on June 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Thanks 2Brave – and the only reason why I threw that in – was because my friend and I are really sitting here laughing, about to go to the beach for a drink…
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Conservatives should be extremely careful how they address race and gender.
SouthernGal on June 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM
No – merely exposing Sotomayor during contentious hearings and discussion focused on identity politics and secondarily on competence is already a political blow to Obama and, as important, to his coalition, since the electorate – even across demographic groups – is durably on the other side of the left-liberals on these issues.
For So-So to be rejected or forced to withdraw – outcomes which I also, as I noted, consider unlikely – would further imply a rejection of Obama’s judgment and also likely confirm a split in his coalition. For her to be accepted but as a widely unpopular choice would increase the pressure on the Blue Dogs to prove their independence from Obama on other issues, while putting them at greater risk in 2010.
Turning the tide decisively against the Democrats in 2010 and 2012 requires defining them in just the way that So-So helps to facilitate. The complex of issues directly related to economic factors will of course likely remain primary, but affirmative action/identity politics in the context of dysfunctional big government liberalism is all part of the same theme.
CK MacLeod on June 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I don’t care what anyone says, I’ll state the obvious,
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I’ll bet good money that the photo above the story is of the good judge giving a speech about how young black men are victims of the system.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM
more often than not because Davis erred by siding with accused black criminals.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
shocked SHOCKED! Gambling in Rick’s Cafe?
max1 on June 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM
She is probably pro-life with her church and pro-choice for political reasons… this is why she doesn’t say a peep about it and why nobody knows for sure.
AND per Life News: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5092.html
kthomas8268 on June 12, 2009 at 3:35 PM
She is not a hispanic immigrant. I don’t even think her parents were immigrants. She is of hispanic descent. She is a middle class kid from nyc that grew up to be a raving liberal. Her family started off humbly, had some tragedy, continued to rise economically and she went on to be a lawyer and judge and her brother became a doctor. That isn’t a unique story. That is the story of the majority of Americans. That is my families story and the story of most of the people here. barry’s wife would tell you that sotomayor faced incredible obstacles because she was a woman, and she was a hispanic. Except her very story contradicts that. She has achieved alot in her life on an almost uninterrupted trajectory. What sotomayor is, is a typical, ungrateful liberal. There is something wrong with people who achieve so much in this country and aspire to destroy there fellow Americans for achieving by the same rules.
peacenprosperity on June 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Who’s throwing a cow?
It certainly isn’t me.
All I said was that Odie’s remark about the 30/70 percentage was off-topic/irrelevant.
Don’t take the argument out of context, and don’t wear your feelings on your sleeves.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
You must be new.
Stick around, kid.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Liar – this is what you also said.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM
???
Now you’re not even making sense.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM
I am sure calculus didn’t make sense to you either.
Odie1941 on June 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I think i saw that on COPS.
madne0 on June 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM
lol.
You’re still digging. Having a friend like 2Brave along for the rid doesn’t help you, either.
You’re the one throwing the cow.
You take an post about a judge who is a moron, who happens to be black, and use it to make a non-sequitur about black males in general.
Calculus is the least of your problems.
bluelightbrigade on June 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
It’s racist/ethnicist to bring calculus up. The standard handbook of PC-acceptability clearly states that no one is allowed to speak about any mathematics more complicated than basic arithmetic (with small numbers and not including word problems) when addressing a public that might include people who have been given passes on mathematical ability in order to get them into positions they cannot competently execute.
This is why The Precedent’s “profit and earnings ratios” was deemed PC-appropriate, if incorrect on so many levels that it made any sentient person sick with intellectual disgust.
progressoverpeace on June 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM
So Barry likes tax bosses who don’t pay taxes and judges with bad judgment. Someone please wake me up when it’s 2012; I can’t take much more of this offensive incompetence.
redfoxbluestate on June 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Manure blueboy!
The Judge’s record reveals him to be a supporter of the street thugs, who’ve become the hallmark of, and a disgrace to, black neighborhoods across the nation. You attempted to censor odie 1941, apparently because you consider yourself a hall monitor of what can be said by whites vis-a-vis the obvious failings of black culture – not the least of which are Black Judges. Then when others call you on your BS you obfuscate and distort what you said. No I would not say you “had a cow”, but you sure smell like you stepped in a cow patty up to your ankles!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on June 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Comment pages: